Tenzro Li.Fi MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. Since it's a read-only operation, the description is adequate but could be more explicit about safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and provides key details without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters, the existence of an output schema, and the description covering what is returned, the tool definition is complete for its simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by listing the return fields beyond the schema, but since no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'all blockchain networks supported by LI.FI', and specifies the context 'for cross-chain transfers and swaps'. It also details what is returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lifi_get_connections or lifi_get_quote.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing chain information, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to siblings. No alternative tools are mentioned or contrast provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states it returns connections with optional filters and mentions bridges/exchanges. Does not disclose limits, side effects (none expected), or data freshness. Adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with core action and adds detail in second sentence. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given output schema exists (handles return format) and all params are well-documented, the description sufficiently sets expectations. Could mention that connections are available bridges/exchanges, but already done. Minor gap: no mention of whether listing is exhaustive or paginated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description adds 'between two chains' (implicit from required params) and 'optionally filter by source and destination tokens' which paraphrases schema. Does not add new semantic details beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb 'Get' with specific resource 'available cross-chain connections' between two chains, and mentions optional token filters. Distinguishes from siblings like lifi_get_chains (chains list), lifi_get_quote (price), lifi_get_routes (paths) by focusing on connections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies use case (finding bridges/exchanges between chains) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Minimal guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns gas prices in native units, which is a key behavioral detail. It does not mention any side effects, but none are expected for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two succinct sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, second explains optional filtering and output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, its inputs, and its output format. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'chains' parameter is described). The description adds 'Optionally filter by chain IDs' and mentions output, but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves current gas prices for LI.FI-supported chains, with optional filtering by chain IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lifi_get_chains or lifi_get_tokens, which address different data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the optional 'chains' parameter, providing guidance on filtering. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is specific enough that usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the tool returns optimal route with estimated output, fees, execution time, and transaction data. Does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but is fairly thorough for a quote tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, clear and front-loaded with key purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more compact by merging the second sentence's details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers returns (output, fees, time, tx data) but could be more complete by explicitly noting selection among multiple routes and how output schema complements description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; provides context like cross-chain swap but no new parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets a single best quote for cross-chain swaps or bridges, distinguishing from siblings like lifi_get_routes which likely return multiple routes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use for finalizing a quote but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like lifi_get_routes; no when-not-to guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'routes with fees, estimated time, and step-by-step breakdown,' which informs the agent about the output. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or side effects, but since it is a read-only operation, this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no superfluous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of cross-chain routing, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and what it returns (routes with fees, time, steps). It could mention the need for a wallet address (from_address) for quotes, but the schema covers this. With an output schema existing (implied by 'returns routes...'), the description is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that routes are 'ranked by output amount,' but it does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema already describes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get multiple route options for a cross-chain swap or bridge transfer, ranked by output amount.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('routes'), and provides context that distinguishes it from siblings like lifi_get_quote.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this for comparing routes across different bridges and DEXes.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the sibling tools are available for context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses possible return statuses (PENDING, DONE, FAILED, NOT_FOUND) and other fields, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, nor any prerequisites or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Highly concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a list of returned values. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool (status check), the presence of an output schema (implied by listing return fields), and full schema coverage for parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. It does not require additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, just restates the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the verb 'Check' and resource 'status of a cross-chain transfer', specifies input (transaction hash) and outputs (status types, bridge info, chain info, amounts). Distinct from sibling tools like lifi_get_quote or lifi_get_routes which deal with quotes and routes, not status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage after initiating a transfer by providing a transaction hash, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus when not to, or alternatives. The sibling list indirectly suggests differentiation but is not stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description indicates a read operation but lacks details on data freshness, error handling, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, 22 words, no fluff. Efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly more structure could be beneficial.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Has output schema (not shown but indicated) covering return values. Description covers purpose and outputs briefly. For a simple tool with few parameters, it is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific token on a specific chain'. It distinguishes from siblings like lifi_get_tokens (list) and other chain-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for single token lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this vs lifi_get_tokens or other alternatives. No when-not guidance provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what is returned (addresses, symbols, decimals, logos) but lacks information on behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, idempotency, or any side effects. The scope 'supported chains' is a minor constraint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by optional behavior and return details. Extremely concise with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not address when to use this tool versus lifi_get_token or other siblings, nor does it mention any limits or ordering. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'chains' parameter. The tool description redundantly says 'optionally filter by chain IDs', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since no additional semantics are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Get tokens' and specifies the resource as 'tokens available on LI.FI-supported chains' with optional filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, particularly lifi_get_token (singular), by using the plural form and mentioning the return of a list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing a list of tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lifi_get_token for a specific token or lifi_get_chains for chain details. No when-not scenarios are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states what the tool returns (protocol names, supported chains, tool types), which provides sufficient behavioral transparency for a simple read operation. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose, followed by specific return details. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose and return fields. A slight gap is the lack of usage context (e.g., when to use this vs siblings), but it is adequate for a straightforward getter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, effectively compensating for the empty schema. The output schema exists but the description still provides helpful context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'available bridge and DEX exchange tools integrated into LI.FI,' and lists the return fields (protocol names, supported chains, tool types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lifi_get_chains or lifi_get_tokens.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. For instance, it could mention that this is useful for discovering available tools before making a quote, but no such context is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.